Theistic Evolution

– A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique

Theistic Evolution relies on the assumption that Darwin was right. Without that, there is no Theistic Evolution. Conversely, Theistic Evolution could not be invalidated by any philosophical or theological analysis if Darwin were right. In addition, the science, philosophy and theology (religion) separation is imaginary as shown. At close to 1,000 pages, the book is way too big, and should be split in two or three volumes. To make it more effective, an even better alternative would be to focus on the scientific argument with way fewer chapters dedicated to philosophy and theology. And in that case, Darwinism and not Theistic Evolution would be the real subject of the book (as is always the case).

Given the number of different perspective one can view the subject, it makes perfect sense that this book is a collaborative effort. The downside of this collective work is that not all views fit well together to create a unified message, but this is mitigated by the nice structure of each chapter that starts with a summary, continues with clearly defined subsections and ends with a conclusion.

Too bad the authors refer several times to Judeo-Christian ideas showing an unnecessary, restrictive regional bias. Without one bit of extra effort, they could have discussed about the Abrahamic heritage instead, and Intelligent Design is even more inclusive if one is willing to research other cultures. This omission can be corrected in further editions and does not alter in any way the analyses and conclusions presented.

Some of the most important ideas of this book are:

The problem of origin of information

New genes and proteins are very rare (so far impossible to obtain by random variation)

Significant mutations are not compatible with embryo survival

Even if “natural selection” were nonrandom, it would not matter as it is not what generates innovations

Bioengineering requires sustained, unnatural intervention from the engineers; design and not “evolution” is how we get anything done

Biochemistry nanovehicles design example shows abiogenesis to be an impossibility

Computer simulations of “evolution” are complete failures without a designer

Protein formation cannot be traced back to DNA as RNA is modified after DNA transcription and proteins are modified by glycosylation; protein location in the cell is also critical the their effectivity

EES proponents recognize problems with the theory of evolution but have no valid solutions

Embryo development is orchestrated with DNA playing a very limited role

Embryology, the fossil record, and phylogenetic trees do not support evolution when exaggerated claims are rolled back

Hominins fall into two distinct groups: ape-like and human-like with a distinct gap between them

Genetic difference between humans and apes are far greater than reported and show human uniqueness

Scientism (science worship) is widespread as science is more biased than claimed

Methodological naturalism is not justified and unscientific

Theistic evolution is incompatible with several biblical creation accounts from Genesis (even with less literal interpretations)